Keith Addison wrote:
> Hi Kirk
>
> Interesting one - I posted it before, but no harm in posting it
> again. There was some discussion on it:
> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/31859/
>
> A couple of weeks ago it came up at SANET, the SustAg list, with
> quite a lot more discussion, including some objections by Biofuel
> member Kim Travis, with which I agreed. I posted a response to the
> original post there, from Misha - sustainable food production and
> sustainable fuel/energy have a lot in common, quite a lot about both
> in my reply, so I'll post it again here:
It seems as if we have some contradictory information here. On one
hand, the Richard Manning article claims that the the four cereal grains
commonly grown for human consumption are largely responsible for the
decline in soil health. Hunting and gathering, the traditionally held
"occupation" of early humans, is stated to have produced healthier
people than early agriculture could sustain. So why would anyone bother
domesticating grain?
This seems strange to me from a purely anthropological and
physiological perspective. I have been a vegetarian for since age 7 or
8. I didn't want to "hurt animals" by eating them, everybody in my
family thought I was crazy and would end up unhealthy, but I've stuck
with it and though I'm now into my 40's, I'm far from unhealthy. We
humans have a relatively long intestinal tract, in which
biomagnification of toxins consumed in flesh foods can easily take
place. (In the natural world, predators tend to have sharp teeth and
short intestines.) Although we're fairly large creatures, we don't run
fast and without tools, we're not terribly effective hunters. We
produce ptyalin in our saliva--an enzyme that serves to break down
starches, which is a curious characteristic for creatures many believe
depended primarily on animal protein for survival in pre historic
times. (Why would we have starch breaking enzymes in saliva if the
starch grains weren't part of our diet in ancient times?) We have very
thin enamel on our teeth, which suggests that even plant foods HAD to be
cooked in order for our ancestors to chew for years on end. (Also, some
plants are totally indigestible unless they are cooked first!) The
physiological characteristics of human anatomy suggest the hunter /
gatherer / cook model is likely an accurate one. So if a community of
hunter / gatherer / cooks is thriving, why switch strategies?
Aboriginal people in North America, who depended on a hunter /
gatherer economy before Europeans arrived, generally scraped by through
"feast" and "famine" cycles dictated by the weather. (Except in
California, which was particularly gentle on the aboriginal
inhabitants.) It seems likely, to me anyway, that planting cereal
grains and storing them enabled the "wheat - beef" people in Europe to
survive the "famine" cycles afflicting their neighbors. In Keith's
follow up post, a quote from G.T. Wrench suggests that the organization
enabling the "wheat - beef" people to protect their harvest from nomads
seeded the "top down" command structure characteristic of wealth and
power distribution of modern human society.
So if people developed agriculture as a means to prevent starvation,
and if the four major cereal crops contribute to the break down of soil
fertility, it seems very ironic that the strategy used to ensure our
survival and domination as a species could contribute to our downfall.
In contrast to this conclusion, the "small farms" resource page on
"Journey to Forever" suggests that small farms, using intensive methods
involving multiple crops, trees and livestock, represent a sustainable
method for food production. How can this be, given that the grains we
grow for food contribute to soil depletion? (Rice farming in Thailand
is an example of this quandary.)
I've spoken to several local farmers who insist that cows produce
low volumes of poor quality milk if they aren't fed grain, and I've
wondered what milk was like in the days before grain feeding became
common. Also, if grain grasses are not climax vegetation, how can our
animals be adapted to consume them? If we HAVE to feed grain to our
cattle, swine and poultry in order for their products to be fit for
human consumption, and if the grains we're feeding them destroy our
soil, what other options do we have?
Or, perhaps, are the conclusions about soil depletion and cereal
grains argued by Richard Manning are inaccurate?
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
